Intertextual Inclusions in Russian Spiritual Epistolary Communication: Typology, Functions, Context

Intertextual inclusions (quotations, reminiscences, allusions) functioning in Russian spiritual epistolary communication are considered. Their types are presented: biblical (Old Testament and New Testament), patristic, prayer, hymnographic (from psalms and akathists), hagiographic.  Their main functions are indicated: meaning-forming, argumentative, prescriptive, evaluative, syndicative, aesthetic. Based on the material of the letters of Russian church writers of the 20th century, the features of the use of intertextual inclusions from Christian texts that have become part of the spiritual heritage are shown in the church-religious style. The following features were revealed: (1) formation of meanings with the help of quotations, reminiscences and allusions, connected with the spiritual education of the addressee, his moral perfection, the creation of an inner man in himself, strengthening in faith, the study of the foundations of Christianity, the knowledge of church Orthodox life; (2) focus on Christian values: the gospel commandments, the doctrine of salvation, Christian virtues, and others; (3) prescribing perfection in acquiring mercy, humility, patience, obedience, sobriety, non-possession, repentance and other virtues, fighting sins, reading the Gospel and the writings of the holy fathers; an expression of evaluation of sweat in relation to sins and virtues, issues related to spiritual education and development, the fulfillment of church rules and Christian commandments, the achievement of soul salvation, following the instructions of confessors; (4) creation and strengthening of a common spiritual and religious space through the implementation of the iconic function of intertextual inclusions.

1. Bolotnova, N. S. (2009). Philological analysis of the text: textbook. 4th ed. Moscow: Flint: Nauka. 520 p. ISBN 978-5-9765-0053-2. (In Russ.).

2. Carvalhal, T. F. (2006). Intertextualidade: a migração de um conceito. Via atlântica, 9. JUN: 126—136. (In Port.).

3. Chaginskaya, E. A. (2009). Metamorphoses of meaning: a view through the prism of the comparative exegetic method. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 22: Theory of translation, 4: 108—120. (In Russ.).

4. Dante, A. (1975). “Feast”. In: Foreign literature of the Middle Ages. Moscow: Prosveshchenie. 200—202. (In Russ.).

5. Gadomsky, A. K. (2018). Lexicographic description of terminology of theolinguistics (on the example of Russian and Polish languages). Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2: Linguistics, 17 (1): 17—28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2018.1.2. (In Russ.).

6. Gadomsky, A. K. (2021). Discussion about religious language in Russian and Polish linguistics. In: Methodological innovations in the practice of teaching Russian language and literature in a multicultural environment: III International Scientific and Practical Conference (May 21—22, 2021): collection of materials. Kazan: [b. i.]. 120 p. (In Russ.).

7. Klimenko, L. P. (2016). On the question of exegesis of the sacred text in the Church Slavonic language and its Russian translation. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University named after N. I. Lobachevsky, 4: 211—215. (In Russ.).

8. Komarova, Z. I. (2016). Methodology, method, methodology and technology of scientific re-search in linguistics: textbook. Moscow: FLINT: Nauka. 820 p. (In Russ.).

9. Kozhina, M. N., Duskaeva, L. R., Salimovsky, V. A. (2012). Stylistics of the Russian language: textbook. Moscow: FLINT: Nauka. 464 p. ISBN 978-5-9765-0256-7. (In Russ.).

10. Kuzmina, N. A. (2009). Intertext and its role in the processes of evolution of poetic language. Ed. 5th. Moscow: Book House “LIBROCOM”. 272 p. ISBN 978-5-397-00842-6. (In Russ.).

11. Mishlanov, V. A., Salimovsky, V. A. (2010). Dialogicity of church-religious texts. Bulletin of Perm University. Russian and foreign philology, 6 (12): 24—29. (In Russ.).

12. Moskvin, V. P. (2011). Intertextuality: Conceptual apparatus. Figures, genres, styles. Moscow: Book House “LIBROCOM”. 164 p. ISBN 978-5-397-02024-4. (In Russ.).

13. Moskvin, V. P. (2015a). Methodology of intertextual analysis. Bulletin of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 3 (98): 116—121. (In Russ.).

14. Mukhin, M. Yu. (2015). Atypical lexical compatibility: term formalization and text analysis. Ural Philological Bulletin. Series: language. system. Personality: linguistics of creativity, 1: 105—115. (In Russ.).

15. Nikulin, M. (2017). The exegetical method of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his “Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews”. Christian Reading, 6: 64—70. (In Russ.).

16. Piege-Gro, N. (2015). Introduction to the theory of intertextuality. 2nd Ed. Moscow: LE-NAND. 240 p. ISBN 978-5-9710-2020-2. (In Russ.).

17. Pirogov, O. K. (2009). Exegetical methods of svt. St. John Chrysostom in his Interpretation of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. Christian Reading, 9—10: 68—99. (In Russ.).

18. Postovalova, V. I. (2012). “Monastery in the world” and its cultural and historical faces (to the theology of the Orthodox asceticism). Scientific and pedagogical journal of Eastern Siberia Magister Dixit, 3: 46—81. (In Russ.).

19. Postovalova, V. I. (2019). Dealingwith in modern human cognition: origins and directions. In: Reader coolingsystem. Ulyanovsk: Master Studio. 36—47. (In Russ.).

20. Smolina, A. N., Lubkina, O. A. (2012). Intertextuality as a stylistic feature of church-religious texts. The world of science, culture, education, 5 (36): 268—270. (In Russ.).

21. Smolina, A. N. (2019a). The idea of self-abasement of a person in the Russian monastic epistolary culture of the twentieth century: linguocommunicative aspect. Ecology of language and communicative practice, 1: 48—65. DOI: 10.17516/2311-3499-048. (In Russ.).

22. Zholobov, O. F. (2007). The Teachings of Efrem Sirin in the itertextual and compositional echoes of the original Old Russian writing. Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University. Series 3: Philology, 3 (9): 7—13. (In Russ.).